Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll - draft-dong-teas-enhanced-vpn-03

[John E Drake <[e-mail]>]

It’s also the case that RFC3209 is a bad example for you to use because of the many subsequent drafts that attempt to improve its scalabity

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 24, 2018, at 11:06 AM, John E Drake <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

Andy,

The difference is that the RFC 3209 control plane overhead is per-network where here it is per-VPN and the per-VPN overhead appears to be arbitrarily large.

Thanks,

John

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 24, 2018, at 10:34 AM, Andrew G. Malis <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

John,

Does RFC 3209 have any guidance on how many RSVP-TE sessions you can run simultaneously in a network, or a node? It's obviously both implementation and deployment dependent. Why is this draft any different?

Cheers,
Andy


On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 7:49 AM John E Drake <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Comments inline

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 24, 2018, at 5:46 AM, Dongjie (Jimmy) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

Hi John,

Please see inline.

Best regards,
Jie

From: John E Drake [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2018 9:15 PM
To: Dongjie (Jimmy) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Igor Bryskin <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Andrew G. Malis <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: TEAS WG Chairs <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [Teas] WG adoption poll - draft-dong-teas-enhanced-vpn-03

Hi,

Comment inline

Yours Irrespectively,

John

From: Dongjie (Jimmy) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2018 9:47 PM
To: John E Drake <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Igor Bryskin <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Andrew G. Malis <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: TEAS WG Chairs <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [Teas] WG adoption poll - draft-dong-teas-enhanced-vpn-03

Hi John,

This draft does not suggest to allocate network resources to each individual VPN, only the VPNs which require particular level of SLA need to be integrated with underlay network resources, thus the number of enhanced VPN would be much less than the number of traditional overlay VPNs. Also it is possible that several VPNs with similar characteristics could be assigned with a set of aggregated resources,  and would share the same logical network.

[JD]  I don’t recall any such discussion in the draft.  Further, what is the maximum # of VPN+ instances supported in a given network such that that network does not implode?

[Jie] Such discussion happened during the presentation on previous IETF meetings, the current draft doesn't mandate the mapping of each individual VPN to dedicated logical network with resources allocated.

JD. I am going to compile a list of statements
that the draft makes that would lead one to a
different conclusion

That said, we could add some clarification in future version. The number of enhanced VPNs would depend on the number of services and customers which have such level of SLA requirement.


JD  So, you have no guidance to offer?


Best regards,
Jie

From: Teas [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of John E Drake
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2018 11:14 PM
To: Igor Bryskin <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Andrew G. Malis <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: TEAS WG Chairs <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll - draft-dong-teas-enhanced-vpn-03

Igor,

I am not convinced that network slicing is a good idea because it assumes that logical networks w/ vastly different characteristics can be built out of a set of common network resources.  I am convinced that allocating network resources on a per-VPN basis is a bad idea because of the scaling issues.

Yours Irrespectively,

John

From: Igor Bryskin <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2018 9:55 AM
To: John E Drake <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Andrew G. Malis <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: TEAS WG Chairs <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [Teas] WG adoption poll - draft-dong-teas-enhanced-vpn-03

Hi John,

Do you see any differences between a logical network and a network topology? Specifically, would you define network slices as produced by the same physical network sufficiently separated network topologies, each of which designed for specific class(es) of clients/overlays, with network resources available for the overlays limited by the resource pools allocated to the corresponding topologies? Another question: could network slices in your opinion be built hierarchically, i.e. higher level slices comprised of lower level ones?

Thanks,
Igor

From: Teas [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of John E Drake
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2018 11:46 AM
To: Andrew G. Malis; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: TEAS WG Chairs; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll - draft-dong-teas-enhanced-vpn-03

Andy,

Network slicing is very different from what is described in this draft.  Network slicing envisions a small number of logical networks built using the same physical network, each of which is designed for a specific type of overlay network and a given VPN, depending upon its requirements, would be assigned to one or more of these network slices.  This draft, in contrast, is describing assignment of resources from the physical network to individual VPNs.

This is clearly absurd, and its characterization as a ‘scalable approach’ seems ill-considered.

This draft is also not a framework draft in any of the normally used definitions of that word (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/framework<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.merriam-2Dwebster.com_dictionary_framework&d=DwMGaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=CRB2tJiQePk0cT-h5LGhEWH-s_xXXup3HzvBSMRj5VE&m=n9sCWh1x8RH083BAlFMqUZfK0blyu7AEqTYj5kopZ1I&s=o2aQfkCcHYaq6v8_OptqlhDqzYAgs1OiHS3JnOcuXtY&e=>).  Rather, I would characterize it as a set of semi-random musings.

Yours Irrespectively,

John

From: Teas <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> On Behalf Of Andrew G. Malis
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2018 9:38 AM
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: TEAS WG Chairs <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll - draft-dong-teas-enhanced-vpn-03

Yes/support. This is a scalable approach for network slicing and enhanced VPNs that builds on a body of existing work.

Cheers,
Andy


On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 2:27 AM Vishnu Pavan Beeram <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
All,

This is start of a *three* week poll on making
draft-dong-teas-enhanced-vpn a TEAS working group document.
Please send email to the list indicating "yes/support" or "no/do not
support". If indicating no, please state your reservations with the
document. If yes, please also feel free to provide comments you'd
like to see addressed once the document is a WG document.

The poll ends Jan 7th 2019 (extra week to account for the holidays).

Thanks,
Pavan and Lou
_______________________________________________
Teas mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_teas&d=DwMFaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=CRB2tJiQePk0cT-h5LGhEWH-s_xXXup3HzvBSMRj5VE&m=jfPzAk6KYMTzEcjux7ADyZR5qPrxoPYBDdzWSlkedyw&s=uXdPvThk8MvzKASbv-H0_ekBtni_GK-xqPKnIbJ6ek4&e=>
_______________________________________________
Teas mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_teas&d=DwICAg&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=CRB2tJiQePk0cT-h5LGhEWH-s_xXXup3HzvBSMRj5VE&m=7q7Sy9mXUL7vBxkH5ULTOz4idsbbCsUJ_xpR01oLUQU&s=aCFHn4WsPSFFoVQOHJYfaYoLfXNlndixBrCnjoluO00&e=